|
Let me tell you how damage should actually work in D&D. *reveals table littered with a wide array of mall ninja accoutrements*
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Kaysette posted:Let me tell you how damage should actually work in D&D. well i mean if you die in the game you die for real so this seems reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
I think that a lot of the problems about nothing happening on a failure are a result of D&D being really bad at communicating what success and failure should represent. Hell, from the aforementioned Mearls podcast where the game ground to a halt because the players couldn't find a secret door you can see that even the game's lead designer has trouble with it. At least in my opinion it's okay to have a system based on binary success and failure provided that you make both success and failure interesting and progress the game in at least some direction. Basically, even before the DM calls for a roll they should ask themselves "Where can this situation go if the characters succeed? Where can it go if they fail?" If failure doesn't do anything beyond "The situation goes nowhere and the characters must roll again if they want to progress" then you shouldn't call for a roll. The traditional example is that of the locked door. Now, the locked door that must be broken or unlocked before the adventure can progress is already a failure in adventure design: a locked door should never be an obstacle in the way of actually progressing in the dungeon. At most a locked door should be a means to bypass other branches of the dungeon. A failure to pick a lock doesn't stop the game, but it means that the characters need to find another way, whether it means finding a detour that goes around more dangerous areas (in this case failure means having to expend more time and resources) or actually looking for the key with which to unlock the door (again, failure here means having to spend more time). In other cases bypassing a locked door might offer hidden rewards, like more treasure or expendable magic items. Of course, you don't hide the plot-important macguffin behind a locked door (unless the players can absolutely find the key to said door given enough exploration) because, again, if the players fail the roll the game grinds to a halt. Then again, in a dungeon-setting "You fail and nothing happens for the next ten minutes" is tense enough in itself even if you allow for rerolling the same test: all that time spent on unlocking a door means that the clock ticks forward and the DM will check for wandering monsters and so on. Personally though, as much as I like wandering monsters and the tension they bring to the game, from the other side of the screen the tension might not feel as real. I've toyed with the idea of a sort of a dungeon clock, similar to the escalation die from 13th Age: after the first turn spent in the dungeon the DM slams a six-sided die on the table, with the number 1 facing up, and says "Every turn you spend in the dungeon the dungeon clock ticks forward. Once it reaches 6 wandering monsters will happen." Hell, you could even tie some other stuff into it, like giving the players the means to wind the dungeon clock back by taking special care to move around quietly and so on. Oh, and one more thing: I can't be the only one who's noticed that pre-written D&D adventures are absolutely filled with locked doors without so much as a key in sight. Who the gently caress keeps locking these doors and where the hell are they hiding the keys? E: The main point is that binary success and failure is okay provided you only call for rolls when either success or failure is interesting and actually has clear consequences without grinding the game to a halt, but D&D as a game has always been notoriously bad at communicating this (except for the 4e DMG2 which had a loving flowchart for this poo poo).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Oh, and one more thing: I can't be the only one who's noticed that pre-written D&D adventures are absolutely filled with locked doors without so much as a key in sight. Who the gently caress keeps locking these doors and where the hell are they hiding the keys? I always actually want to have lots of keys and locked doors in my D&D adventures but it's never worth bothering because unlike a computer game if presented with a locked door they can't pick players will just break it down with axes, rather than look for a key.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Then again, in a dungeon-setting "You fail and nothing happens for the next ten minutes" is tense enough in itself even if you allow for rerolling the same test: all that time spent on unlocking a door means that the clock ticks forward and the DM will check for wandering monsters and so on. Yeah, "you wasted 10 minutes for no result" is actually tense as all hell in the oldschool dungeon setting with the oldschool assumptions where that means that there's now definitely at least 2 wandering monster checks between here and the exit and the Sneakin' Sam died a little while ago and there's only 1 turn left on the Find Traps spell and oh poo poo you guys, we've only got 2 turns worth of lamp oil left! <PCs rush for the exit, darkness engulfs the party, Fred Fighter The Ninth falls into a pit and dies, Meric The Male Cleric is eaten by an unseen Gelatinous Cube, and Magic Usin' Melvin staggers out into the light, realises that as the sole survirvor he gets all the xp, and immediately disappears in a flash of light as he ascends to the expert set which Brian's dad won't buy him until his birthday.> But that's not the same as "you roll low and nothing happens, try again until the dice say you can proceed", it's part of the balancing act between resources you can carry in vs treasure you can carry out vs not dying alone in the dark which is as inherent to old D&D as "roll a d20 to hit". xiw posted:players will just break it down with axes, rather than look for a key. Ahem. I meant, "Ask your DM". It's DC 150 Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
Speaking of this, I'd actually say that gating some parts of the dungeon behind arbitrarily high DCs is actually okay, provided there's a way for the players to revisit that location at a later time when they can meet the DC. Maybe at level 1 when the PCs explore the goblin dungeon they make a note of the fact that one of the doors is enchanted adamantium and thus DC 30 to break down. Obviously, level 1 characters don't have a means to break the door ever (no matter how high they roll they won't succeed), but once they've got a few more levels under their belt and now know for a fact that they could totally take that door they might want to revisit that dungeon and kick the door in. (Even if their total bonus would just be barely enough to make the result a 30 on a roll of 20, as a DM I'd say that it's totally fair to assume that the group will eventually break the door due sheer force of will, effectively allowing them to "Take 20" even though there aren't rules for that in the game.) Which actually reminds me, I was rereading the Rules Cyclopedia again yesterday and reading over the list of potions, when for the first time I realized a bit about the classic Potion of Giant Strength (or something, can't remember the exact name) I hadn't noticed before: in addition to doubling your melee damage for its duration, it also gives you the ability to throw giant-sized boulders that deal 3d6 damage. Now, I'm not exactly sure how big a giant-sized boulder is, but I should think it'd be big enough to cover, say, the mouth of a small cave. So now you've got your cave with a boulder covering it. The DC is just high enough that the group can't make the check without some kind of a boost. Then you drop a Potion of Giant Strength somewhere in the dungeon (preferably in such a way that the players will discover the cave with the boulder covering it first and only then find the potion, so that by the time they find the potion they'll instantly know of one potential use for it). Once the Fighter quaffs that potion and starts feeling really swole you tell them that given enough time you're sure they could move that boulder now. What you've basically got now is a locked door with a key with the main difference being that the key isn't a literal key in this case, and should the players wish to conserve the potion and use it for other purposes they can do that in case they're not interested in exploring boulder cave. Of course you don't want to make it too obvious or convenient for the players: if every time the players find an unsurmountable obstacle they find just the magical item they need to bypass it (say, a wide chasm with a Potion of Flight in the very next room) these obstacles will start feeling somewhat artificial. Maybe put that wide chasm on the first level of the dungeon and on the third level drop a Potion of Flight into the loot pile. The players could go back to level one and use that Potion of Flight to make it across the chasm and probably make some kind of a zipline or something with one of the already across, or they could conserve that Potion of Flight for later. Regardless, at some point one of the spellcasters might learn the flight spell and now they might come to think that "Hey, remember that chasm on level 1 that we couldn't get across back then? Maybe we should go and check it out since I've recently gained the power of flight." Basically, dungeons should be more like Metroidvanias.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I think that a lot of the problems about nothing happening on a failure are a result of D&D being really bad at communicating what success and failure should represent. Hell, from the aforementioned Mearls podcast where the game ground to a halt because the players couldn't find a secret door you can see that even the game's lead designer has trouble with it. The alternate option to just not rolling if/when there's no time pressure or anything like that, is to just say "Ok, you get one roll to pick the lock; if it doesn't work, then someone else gets to try." Which seems like the thing a party would do, really. If the Rogue doesn't unlock it, then it's either the Wizard spends a spell slot to magic it up, or the Barbarian breaks poo poo apart. Which leads to either making a huge kerfuffle that alerts enemies on the other side of the door, breaking whatever potions were in the locked chest, or a door blown off its hinges that would have been useful in stalling the guys chasing you, as you cheez it on the way out. You could just handwave it as "on a failure the Rogue breaks the door (or some other inconvenient/negative side effect) but the lock is now open" but I think it's a little more interesting if a failed roll means you have to try something else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
i mean these are okay ideas but. a.) who knows how long a group will last, most games don't go past level 5 or 6 b.) your players have to remember to come back and do this stuff instead of plowing ahead on new challenges c,) your players have to care to come back instead of using that levitation potion somewhere else so you're 90% likely to be burning time creating things nobody will ever see or use
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:so you're 90% likely to be burning time creating things nobody will ever see or use This already characterizes about every D&D campaign I run. Even though I like to run other games more fast and loose these days there's just something about D&D that makes me want to do a lot of prepwork, nevermind the fact that most of my prep will go unused because my players decide to explore another path/city/dungeon/hex or whatever, so I'm okay with this. I'm well aware of the fact that it's a lot of wasted effort on elfgame prep, but I'm perfectly alright with that, as I can use whatever unused ideas I've come up with in the past for my future games. Also, I actually kind of enjoy prep to a certain extent? One of these days I'm actually going to run that 8-level megadungeon implementing all the cool dungeon ideas I've had over the years...
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Speaking of this, I'd actually say that gating some parts of the dungeon behind arbitrarily high DCs is actually okay, provided there's a way for the players to revisit that location at a later time when they can meet the DC. Maybe at level 1 when the PCs explore the goblin dungeon they make a note of the fact that one of the doors is enchanted adamantium and I don't disagree, but a) This is pretty specific to dungeon-crawl style gaming and b) I prefer explicitly signposting that sort of thing with variations of "You don't have a way to do this. Yet." (As an aside, I've used a literal sign, too - A staircase leading down. An arrow pointing down next to it. A sign under the arrows that says "Dungeon Level 3", and then a warning sign below it headed "Cleric General's Warning" and stating that exceeding your level in depth is the leading cause of death in adventurers of levels 1-4. Only one player wanted to go down anyway. They were overruled by the rest of the group). Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
So I did some coolness yesterday, as a martial (Monk, a wrestler guy) even. We were in a big room, and the boss dude of some cult activates a Beholder. So I get a running start, the HOrc Barb helps boost me up, and I give a tentacle a big ol' hug. I was pretty ineffective damage-wise, but I got to do some fun roleplaying all session and the aforementioned spot so it was nice for a change (I usually don't get to play, cause I have class on Thursdays) Having a good DM is pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I don't disagree, but I agree with both of those points: especially with newer players I like to telegraph stuff like this so the players don't spend a lot of time trying to open a door they simply don't have the means to. Even with more experienced players, because I can't expect my players to be able to gauge whether a given door will be DC 15 or DC 30 simply based on my description, but I can expect their characters to be able to make a reasonable guess as to whether or not they could break that door given enough time. And yeah, my advice is definitely dungeon-centric, and it just reflects my own tastes when it comes to D&D. I'm a simple man with simple tastes, and I like dungeons in my Dungeons & Dragons. (Could do without the dragons though.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I agree with both of those points: especially with newer players I like to telegraph stuff like this so the players don't spend a lot of time trying to open a door they simply don't have the means to. Even with more experienced players, because I can't expect my players to be able to gauge whether a given door will be DC 15 or DC 30 simply based on my description, but I can expect their characters to be able to make a reasonable guess as to whether or not they could break that door given enough time. I personally prefer saying things along the lines of "the current party can't move that with their current strength" to "it's really tough, like DC 30", but I guess we're getting the same functional result - they can't go through now, but there's a strong implication that they will be able to go through later. I signpost pretty much everything because I want the PCs to interact with it all. I'm fine if they choose not to, or if their interaction doesn't work, but I feel like I've failed if they don't even realise certain objects and locations exist. To me that means I haven't given them the right kinds of descriptions and prompts. And yeah, I could probably be happy without the dragons, but not without the dungeons. Straight up dungeon crawls are far and away my favorite D&D thing, if not my favorite TTRPG thing. I'd like to see more different or original takes on the idea. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Something that I've heard said over and over again as a good/innovative dungeon design practice is that the dungeon should never be completely linear: 1. There should be multiple entry points into the dungeon 2. The entry points shouldn't all lead into the same level of the dungeon. That is, they might end up at "level 2" immediately if that's the entry way they scout out and end up finding 3. The "stairs down" shouldn't always lead to level x+1. There's also the idea of "trap" that isn't really anything more than a slide that drops you from level 1 to level 3, with the associated scramble by the party to get the hell out of there because they are literally out of their depth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
This whole discussion about megadungeons is pretty spot on in general. Like the Metroidvania approach is a thing in general, both with gaining new abilities and learning your ways around the dungeon. Some of the more infamous stories about Castle Greyhawk (the Black Reservoir, for example) are about gaining new abilities and using them. The same thing goes with producing tons of content and lots of options that players often won't see. It's not an illegitimate way to run a game - it's a very good one, in fact - but it is loose and sandboxy and it doesn't lead to the tighter centrally plotted games that a lot of people like these days (and that are more frequently produced by gaming companies.) I don't think the sandbox model is OSR-exclusive or exclusive to the old school (a lot of Forgotten Realms stuff uses it and that's not old school), but it has fallen out of favour and isn't something 5e suggests or lends itself to very well. One of the smarter things that I got out of Dragonsfoot's megadungeon forum is that any megadungeon is a product and a unique process depending upon the DM and the campaign it comes from. They're always specific and unique, and even published megadungeons (even lived in from home games ones like Undermountain and Barrowmaze) cannot hope to encapsulate the real experience. All those offcuts and unseens and varieties are just as much the story as what does actually see its way in. Postscript: If you're interested in doing this in 5e, the Angry DM has a huge elaborate series about building a megadungeon in 5e that goes through a lot of this. He specifically invokes the Metroidvania idea, works up a list of comparable powers that change things up, so forth and so on. It's good reading, especially if you pair it with all the OSR stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Something that I've heard said over and over again as a good/innovative dungeon design practice is that the dungeon should never be completely linear: A dungeon shouldn't be completely linear, no. But if you're doing the "Difficulty is set to an appropriate level for 4-5 PCs of character level = dungeon level" thing, then: 1: Multiple entries and exits are a great idea, yes. 2: If those lead to harder areas, it's a good idea to make them difficult to find or access from the outside, or otherwise put up a figurative "this is the entrance to hard mode" sign, because 3: Suddenly transporting a party to an unknown, unmapped area where all the challenges are 2 levels above them and they don't know which way is out is a great way to end your game in the few turns. By all means let them choose to get ahead of themselves, but the trap that suddenly increases the difficulty to level+1 or level+2 is cheap bullshit unless you're doing it in such a way that there's an obvious path to reset the difficulty with one or two avoidable level+2 things in the way. Examples: Bad: Party suddenly drops down 2 levels. They are lost in a maze. The exit or way back up could be down any of these branching paths. All the encounters here are level+2. (They're in the middle of dungeon level 3, they have to explore it as normal, and will probably die) Good: Party suddenly drops down 2 levels. They can see daylight from here. There's an exit! Through the cobwebs... in which the (level+2) murderspider is currently sleeping. (They're at an external entry/exit for dungeon level 3, they can (probably) escape right now, and will then have an extra entry/exit for when they're level 3). Again, this is all playing off the assumption that you're doing an old style dungeon crawl with difficulty increasing by dungeon level, players are aware of this, etc. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
That's bad only if you're not willing to threaten specific characters. Trap ramps, trapdoors, and puzzle elevators that dump you out-of-depths are a huge, exciting part of the large/mega dungeon experience, and should be included sparingly. The question is whether a TPK means a complete end to the campaign - the traditional megadungeon game assumes it's not, that the players will learn for the next time, and that characters can be replaced. If you're running a strongly narrative game where specific characters matter, then yeah you don't want to drop the players in an unknown dungeon level - but your dungeons should also serve narrative purpose and be organized differently then (aka not using the dungeon level challenge paradigm.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Arivia posted:That's bad only if you're not willing to threaten specific characters. Trap ramps, trapdoors, and puzzle elevators that dump you out-of-depths are a huge, exciting part of the large/mega dungeon experience, and should be included sparingly. The question is whether a TPK means a complete end to the campaign - the traditional megadungeon game assumes it's not, that the players will learn for the next time, and that characters can be replaced. If you're running a strongly narrative game where specific characters matter, then yeah you don't want to drop the players in an unknown dungeon level - but your dungeons should also serve narrative purpose and be organized differently then (aka not using the dungeon level challenge paradigm.) I've never done the megadungeon thing in the way that people seem to use the term now. I used to do a whole lot of dungeons where the whole thing was 8-10 levels but each level were their own adventure in that each level (or more usually 2-3 consecutive levels) had its own goal, story, etc, all tying into a greater vaguely connected plot. Each level was 1-2 sessions long, and if things proceeded vaguely according to plan you'd expect to gain a character level roughly around the end of a dungeon level. While it's true that doing it that way gave a fairly linear progression of dungeon and character level, story connected levels were not internally linear. So if one themed area / subplot / adventure / whatever spanned levels 3, 4, and 5, then there were usually multiple paths between those levels. In that kind of game, you can threaten one or several characters at once, but the idea of the continuous party is still a fairly big deal, so you don't want to wipe everyone out. You're almost certainly not going to finish the whole thing with any of the original PCs, but it needs a bit of handwaving for the game to continue if you kill everyone at once. If everyone's cool with that it doesn't matter, but I used to find that players would lose interest if it happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
UA Monk Traditions is up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Kensei Well... so much for bounded accuracy, I guess. They also get, in essence, a permanent +2 AC bonus so long as they're actively fighting. When you hit level 20 and always start every fight with 4 ki points, Sharpen the Blade is kind of ridiculous. And it seems to stack with actual magic weapon bonuses as well. The theme of the Kensei seems to be "get higher numbers than other Monks". Way of Tranquility "Monks of the Way of Tranquility see violence as a last resort. They use diplomacy, mercy, and understanding to resolve conflicts." Wow that sounds like an excellent class to put into a game about murder-hobos. Healing Hands is sort of ridiculous though. It basically gives you 10 extra hit points per level, which you just tap into whenever you attack as a bonus action (replacing the flurry's bonus attack). Douse the Flames of War has terminology issues. The target can't attack or cast spells that deal damage and/or force saving throws... however, the creature can still use any other hostile abilities. Like dragonbreath, or any other hostile ability that is neither a spell nor requires an attack roll. Remember, "attack" is a strictly defined game term that does not include any sort of hostile act whatsoever. Anger of a Gentle Soul is best when your friendly wizard summons the weakest creature possible on your side and forces it to draw an opportunity attack. The minion snuffs it and so the Monk experiences incandescent rage. tl;dr Kensei breaks bounded accuracy. Tranquility has a poo poo-ton of hit points and all but forces people to go Maximum Rules Lawyer for best efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Kensei How does Kensei break bounded accuracy? I'm not being obstinate, I just don't see it, I feel like I can't see the sailboat in the Magic Eye. Also I don't understand how the +2 AC bonus works. You have to make an unarmed attack as "part of the Attack action" and it doesn't look like using Kensei weapons counts as unarmed. Can you dual weapon with a sword and your fist?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Hmm Kensei may break bounded accuracy if that stacks with the bonus on an actual magic weapon. They do get the +2 AC so long as they are actively fighting with their fists while wielding a kensei weapon. Of course their damage bonus on kensei weapons, the 1d4 bludgeoning per hit, requires a bonus action and is mutually exclusive with any of the bonus action attack options a monk has. But apparently the 1d4 bludgeoning pummel doesn't specify being in melee range so could apparently be added on an archer monk. Mendrian you can wield a greatsword, and at 5th level or higher make one attack with it and one attack with an unarmed strike to get the greatsword damage, using str or dex, and thus get the +2 AC. You could use your bonus action to either add 1d4 bludgeoning to the greatsword attack, if you used it before you attacked, or use it after for the martial arts attack or 1 ki Flurry of Blows. There is a lot of stuff that seems mutually exclusive. Ryuujin fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:How does Kensei break bounded accuracy? I'm not being obstinate, I just don't see it, I feel like I can't see the sailboat in the Magic Eye. They break bounded accuracy in two ways: First, they can add up to a +3 bonus through the use of ki points. Which will stack with anything else, because everything stacks unless specifically told otherwise. And second, they can double their proficiency bonus. Only once per rest, sure, but it's basically expertise for attack rolls. That's another +6 bonus right there at higher levels. As for the AC bonus, if you have the Extra Attack feature (like Monks do) then they can launch two attacks with one action. Nowhere does it say that both of these attacks must use the same weapon - it just practically works out that way because why would you switch? So you just simply Attack, once with the weapon and once unarmed, if you like. That's enough to get the AC bonus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Is the pummel in Path of the Kensei clause 3 made with some other part of the weapon or with an unarmed strike? If the latter, does that mean any time you use that bonus action you're also eligible for the AC from clause 4?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Caphi posted:Is the pummel in Path of the Kensei clause 3 made with some other part of the weapon or with an unarmed strike? If the latter, does that mean any time you use that bonus action you're also eligible for the AC from clause 4? Unarmed Strike is a specific type of "weapon". It doesn't matter whether the pummel uses the weapon or a part of your body, because it is not an Unarmed Strike in either case. So it won't grant the AC bonus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
So what's the deal with the pummel attack? Is it basically your "I'm out of ki" backup for flurry of blows? Also the part about dealing 'damage to your target and any other target you hit with the weapon as part of the Attack' is weird to me. I guess if you attack two different targets as part of your Attack action once you have Extra Attack, but that seems pretty niche.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
My Kensei's bonded weapon is this flask of alchemist's fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Can someone explain adventurer's league and how to start playing it like I'm a child?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
1) Find a store or whatever that's hosting a game. You can try http://locator.wizards.com/#brand=dnd but it doesn't seem to work very well. I found a local game by joining a meetup.com group, so that's a good thing to try. 2) Find out if they have any openings or require signing up or whatever, then do that. 3) Make a first level character according to the rules in the Adventurer's League player's guide (get it at http://dndadventurersleague.org/downloads/) 4) Show up and hope to survive 1st level 5e. Good Luck!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
JUST MAKING CHILI posted:Can someone explain adventurer's league and how to start playing it like I'm a child?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Welp on another forum someone found a huge problem with Kensei. Apparently Martial Arts only works when you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons. So if you are wielding a martial weapon, other than a shortsword, you cannot use Martial Arts, so any unarmed attacks would use the base 1+str damage and have to be made with str on the attack roll. So to benefit from the +2 ac you either need to use a shortsword as your martial weapon, or make one attack with a kensei weapon, and one with the base 1+str unarmed attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
It explicitly says it's considered a kensai weapon if you're proficient in it. If you are saying that kensai weapons are different from monk weapons, well, obviously that's not the intent there and no one sane would enforce the rules that way. Like, okay, maybe the somewhat vague wording is a problem, but it's a pretty far cry from a "huge" problem. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Welp on another forum someone found a huge problem with Kensei. Apparently Martial Arts only works when you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons. So if you are wielding a martial weapon, other than a shortsword, you cannot use Martial Arts, so any unarmed attacks would use the base 1+str damage and have to be made with str on the attack roll. So to benefit from the +2 ac you either need to use a shortsword as your martial weapon, or make one attack with a kensei weapon, and one with the base 1+str unarmed attack. That... Ok yeah, that is strictly speaking true, but even I can tell that kensei-weapons are also supposed to be monk-weapons. And I'm just about as nitpicky as they come. But it is correct, and they should have specified. That's why UA is playtest material I guess. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:It explicitly says it's considered a kensai weapon if you're proficient in it. Yes, but in order to use the Martial Arts ability of the base Monk class, you need to wielding a monk weapon. Since these martial weapons are counted as kensei weapons but not explicitly also as monk weapons, there is an issue. But that really relies on the strictest reading possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Rules lawyer attempt: Kensai weapons are monk weapons to a kensai. Kensai are a type of monk, their weapons are a type of monk weapons. This would apply to any monk path that adds weapon proficiencies. It's weirder that it doesn't say "martial melee weapon", that means you can pick a bow and still get the AC bonus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:
Tenzin: "No! gently caress! Goddammit, Spellric. Okay who speaks orcish? Tell the orcs not to hurt the bunny... No! Bunny! Bunny noooooo!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Spellric: "I'm summoning a fluffy bunny again." Words can not describe how much I love this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
It seems irritating to give the monk access to a version of Lay on Hands that's twice as good. It can even cure diseases in the same way and you can use it without wasting your whole turn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
On that Kensai thing. Specific beats general. Zarick posted:It seems irritating to give the monk access to a version of Lay on Hands that's twice as good. It can even cure diseases in the same way and you can use it without wasting your whole turn. However all Paladins get Lay on Hands. And only this type of Monk which is fairly not too focused on combat get it here. Anyway this is still play test material. Most of this stuff will be touched up on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:...only this type of Monk which is fairly not too focused on combat... Path of Tranquility: Prevent opponents from hitting you in combat. Healing Hands: Heals combat damage. Explicitly usable the same round you're attacking someone. Emissary of Peace: Not combat-specific. (One out of 5 ain't bad!) Douse The Flames Of War: Prevent an opponent from attacking in combat, as long as nobody's hit it yet. Anger of a Gentle Soul: Do more damage in combat. Ok. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
The obvious tradeoff would seem to be that the Monk cannot cast any other Divine spells like a Paladin can, even if their Lay On Hands is stronger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:40
|
|